Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Nicholls (No 3)

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions by two State Ministers who allegedly directed the North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation (NQBPC) to terminate the process for the proposed development of port terminals. The respondents denied that any such direction was given. They argued that the proceeding was misconceived and lacked utility. Additionally, Waratah sought further disclosure from the respondents, claiming that the additional disclosure provided pursuant to a previous order placed the Shareholding Ministers’ letter in a substantially different context. Waratah also sought an expansion of an existing disclosure order, but did not provide a basis to suggest that the documents sought existed or fell within the scope of the disclosure order.

The court needed to determine whether the additional disclosure provided by the respondents changed the context of the Shareholding Ministers’ letter in a way that warranted a different outcome. The court also needed to decide whether Waratah had provided a sufficient basis for the further disclosure sought, and whether the respondents had complied with the previous disclosure order. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the proceeding should be dismissed due to being misconceived and lacking utility.

The court found that the additional disclosure did not place the Shareholding Ministers’ letter in a substantially different context to that previously found. Consequently, the court held that the proceeding should be dismissed. The court also determined that Waratah had not provided a sufficient basis for the further disclosure sought, and that the respondents had complied with the previous disclosure order. Therefore, Waratah’s application for further disclosure was dismissed. The court further dismissed Waratah’s originating application and ordered Waratah to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

The court made a declaration that the respondents had complied with the order for disclosure dated 22 March 2013. The court dismissed Waratah’s originating application filed on 5 November 2012 and its application filed on 21 February 2013. The court ordered Waratah to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including the costs of and incidental to the application filed on 21 February 2013 and any reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis.